Randomness can be tamed even in its worst forms

[Albalaha]

I was silently working on handling things that can not be done ordinarily. I found that flat betting is not a remedy and progression is a double edged sword, it might help in certain cases but has its own weaknesses that would kill us faster than a flat better in wrong moments and despite everything, wrong moments can not be avoided fully. That is the harsh reality of randomness. Then I came across this 800 trials session, offering all sorts of worst one can imagine. chance to get such a harsh session is once in a few million hands with Player being my bet. I got a VBA coded tracker to see how it does in all sort of cases.
              When I look at this 800-coup baccarat session, I see exactly what I built my method for.

I was playing Player into a really ugly shoe: 345 wins vs 455 losses – roughly 43.1% hits where the math says I "should" average around 49.3%. In statistical terms that's about a 3.5σ-bad run for Player. On paper, this is the kind of shoe that quietly destroys most progressions and slowly bleeds out flat bettors.

Yet, here's what actually happened with my approach:

 My worst point was about -80 units.
 My biggest stake was only 22 units.
 If I had just flat-bet my actual entries, I'd be around -27 units.
 Instead, I closed the session at +25 units.

And I did that without ever going into insane bet sizes or letting the drawdown spiral out of control.

---

### How I structure the attack

I use a domesticated Labouchere skeleton. I still write and clear lines, but:

 I cap line growth and reset before the list becomes suicidal.
 I accept controlled losses and restart at small units instead of demanding every last unit back.
 I let the system breathe – no "do or die" chases.

The result is that I get Labouchere's recovery flavour but not its usual catastrophic depth.

---

### My auto reverse "worse-filter" – always on, not just for disasters

The heart of the system is what I call my auto worse-filter. It isn't a panic switch reserved only for nightmare shoes; it's running quietly on every shoe – good, average or bad.

It does three main things:

1. It watches the score, not just the last couple of coups.
   When losses push too far ahead of wins in my active bets, the filter steps in. You can see it as long streaks of entries where:

    The outcome column still shows W/L,
    But the bet is 0 and the status is PAUSED.

   That's me tracking the shoe without paying for information.

2. It forces the shoe to "re-qualify" before I re-enter.
   I don't jump back as soon as I see two wins. I make the shoe pass a confirmation window: a fixed number of coups that must show a certain balance of wins before I'm allowed to resume. If it fails, a new window starts.
   This is why some of the ugliest draw sequences in this log happen while I'm completely sidelined: the filter decided "this is still worse than I want to engage with."

3. It blends with cushions and soft stop-losses.
   When things are bad but not catastrophic, I channel losses into a separate cushion structure instead of dumping them straight onto the main line. That stretches recovery gently over time.
   If the equity still sinks to a pre-defined depth (around -80 units in this session), I hit a soft stop-loss:

    I accept that hit.
    I reset back to tiny base units.
    I let the worse-filter and cushions work again from the new, shallow starting point.

Because this filter is always on, it doesn't just save me in rare superbad sessions. On good shoes, it simply doesn't have much to do: the lines clear quickly, stakes stay small, and profit builds quietly. On average shoes, it trims the rough patches so drawdowns don't become psychological torture. On bad and worst-case shoes, like this one, it becomes the primary shield that stops me from escalating endlessly into huge bets.

---

### What this session proves to me

In this 800-coup run:

 The underlying shoe is brutally hostile to Player (3.5 SD below expectation).
 Even on the 441 coups I actually bet, I'm still running cold. On those 441 entries: 207 W – 234 L → flat 1-unit betting would be -27 units, while my structure finishes +25 units. So it was not about being lucky with my filters alone. I still had too many losses than wins in my predefined betting window.
 Still, my maximum depth was ~-80 units, my largest bet only 22 units, and I climbed from that hole to +25 units at the end.

So I'm not pretending I've "beaten" baccarat or changed its maths. What I have done is design a structure where:

 I never need a crazy "rescue" bet,
 My depth is capped and controlled,
 And I can play good, average, bad and even extreme shoes with the same framework – the auto worse-filter just quietly adjusts how aggressively I'm allowed to participate.

It's not a magic trick. It's a refusal to let the shoe dictate my risk. This is something giving me goosebumps and could not resist to write this.

[Albalaha]

I saw this session and could not resist testing this too. 53 losses vs 37 wins. This ended with +15 units. Max bet used 3 units. worst balance = -3.
l
l
w
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
l
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
l
l
l
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
l
w
w
l
w
l
w
l
l
w
l
w

[Albalaha]

I did a 100 million hands simulation on playing Player bet of baccarat on grok and got this:

[VLS]

Congrats on your achievement, dear Sumit! 🎉 This is truly a remarkable feat, and your dedication shines through.

KUDOS and thanks for sharing these insights with our community.

Your accomplishment is quite inspirational! 🌟

[Albalaha]

I simulated 1 million shoes of 100 hands each with usual probability of Player, Banker and Tie bet and I chose to beat Player bet. At worst a session had -80 and 100 million trial yielded roughly 8 million units of net profit. I have done everything to ensure that no future peeking, curve fitting takes place in my simulation. Even with all my safeguards that avoids betting in certain areas, I got usual lesser wins than losses as the usual probability of Player bet gets. I  am a bit cautious over results as if the simulation is perfect, without bias and errors of calculations, it is one of its kind ever done in the history of casino games. With a very limited bankroll, stop loss, max bet limit, it is kind of unbelievable. I will update if I find any anomaly in my tests.

[Albalaha]

I  simulated a very average session today with same tracker a session with 47 wins and 53 losses. It yields +19 units. No big drawdowns, no large bets ever. Max bet was 3 units. :
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W

[Ribert]

Nice work Albalaha.

Just a note in my previous tests, different versions of Grok sometimes inflated the stats or produced small coding errors. In fact, it quite often over-reported wins, to the point where it became a recurring issue. That's why I always double-check the results in GPT to make sure everything is correct. This isn't a criticism of your data. I'm only sharing my experience with the tools

[Albalaha]

I know this. Not just Grok but chatgpt, deepseek, gemini all gives fake outcomes and you should be able to cross check that. I do have a vba coded version and an HTML Version too, of my tracker and my full strategy is very resilient and I can check any shoe seeing everything step by step to verify. I have been sorting super horror sessions and it beats most of them swiftly.

[Albalaha]

This super horrible session yields +56 units: L L L L L L W W L L W L W L W W L L L L W L W W L L W L L L L L L L W W W W L L L L W L L L L W W L L W L L L L L L W W L W L W L L L L W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L W L L W L W W L L W L W L L L W W W W L L L L L L W L L W L W W W W W L W L L W W W L L W L W W W L W W W W W L W W L L L W W L W W L L L L L W W W L W L W W W W L L W L L L L L L W L L W W L L L L W W W W W L W W L W W W L L W L W W W W W W L L W W L L L W W L L L L L W W L W L L W W W W W L W L W L L W W W L L W L W W L W L L W L L W L L W W L W W L W W L L L W W L L L L L W L W L W L L L W W L L L W L L W L L W W W L L W L L L L L W L L W W L W L W W W L L L L L W W L W L W L W W W W L W W W W W W L L W L W W W L W L W L L L L W L L W L L L L L L L L W W L W L W L L W W L L L W W L W L L W L W L L W W L W W W L W W L W W W W L L W W W L L L W L W W W W W W L L L L W W W W W W L L L L L L W W W L W W W W L L W L L W L L W L W W L W L L W W W W W

[Frankver]

Sumit,

Let's look at this from a practical side.
And just as objective as possible.

You have those 100 million hands.
0.0789 profit per hand.
THE problem is the progression.
All the rest, profit ik total AND per spin is useless without knowing the progression.
I guess that the progression in those 100 million is higher (a lot?) that the 22 you mentioned in another post.

So let's use the 22.
Let's say we play bac on a really super fast table (impossible) and we play 100 hands per hour.
So 0.0789 per hand profit is 7.89 units per hour.
Let's say we wanna bet maximum 100 units per hand.
The 22 progression means our base bet unit is 100 divided by 22.
Let's round that up to $5 as base unit bet.

At that superfast table we make 7.89 multiplied by 5. About $40 per hour.

If our maximum bet would be a $1000 dollars per hand. Quite a very huge bankroll needed, would be $400 per hour.

This is assuming the 0.0789 units per hand is with a 22 progression max, for the 100 million spins.
What I am pretty sure of is higher.
So if the max progression is 44, the profit would be half, $20 per hour an $100 table. $200 per hour an a $1000 table.

You have some more info Sumit? To have a better perspective.
Thks

[Ribert]

Good to know you checked everything and the code is correct. I've worked with Grok a lot and in most cases it needed plenty of fixes.

[Albalaha]

@Franker, I worked on realistic maximum bet limit which could be at max 32 units and stop loss is -80 units. In about 7-8% sessions we can encounter the stop loss and even in those, we recover in most. I have been working for over two decades to make a progression that could help playing in a pre determined manner as we can not guess what kind of shoe we are going to face. When I looked at standard progression, apparently they are not just foolish but meant to make us lose quicker than flat bettors. Lose max and win least is what they aim at. Positive progressions are failures too, unless we get lucky. I have analysed millions of hands and found that if we play standard labouchere, we will averagely get to bet till table limits once every 200 hands and ulimately come up with huge losses. I am trying to earn the way casinos do. Slowly grinding for sure profits. Over 100 million simulations would face variance one might not see in entire life. I analysed the same method on average, below average, good, great all sort of sessions and now have an approach that takes care of all, without any tweaks.

@Ribert, I have cross checked things and still doing as I myself do not rely solely on the results given by an AI blindly. As I said earlier, I do have vba coded excel tracker as well as html trackers to evaluate any session just by copy+paste any session in LW form.

[Frankver]

Sumit,
Thanks for your answer.
I love a good answer and straightforward and a detail(s).
Most of the time people run around the questions and avoid a real answer.
And that by itself is an answer in itself.

I am probably by far one of the most dedicated roulette people (and you prob also) with a very pratical and extremely rational mind and not falling in all kind of fallacies and total BS and hope.
As 99% of every forumpost is just blablabla, and 99% is a total underestimation. A total.

Next question.
In standard labouchere, what is in fact an underestimated way of playing (as one could make quite some money -for example playing an Even Chance on roulette, both sides at thesame time- before it turns south...... it's of course not a real winning method but one could work a little bit around that), you mentioned that once in 200 hands you get to the table limit.
So my question is, in what you did, the 100 mil simulation, and the max 32 progression, in 1/X hands was that 32 progression used?